Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
Open science: Got Excel? Debunk this
By Andrew Orlowski The Register
Above: Hurricane ACE data from Ryan Maue. Note where 2009 is in the scheme of things. More here.
More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.
Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.
Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.
Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.
“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.
Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.
The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.
Read the rest of the story at the Regsiter here
Status? Presented, submitted, published?
As an aside, the notion that work questioning the IPCC’s conclusions is an “x-gate,” i.e., a scandal, is ridiculous. It’s irresponsible and indicative of ignorance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry to imply that work questioning your conclusions is a stain or your integrity or even a big deal.
Good. Some real science. Well done.
Very interesting. Now I wonder why it cannot be published:
“Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as “unpublishable”.”
Is that the peer-review system and journals that won’t publish anything that goes against the “consensus”.
G
For any over there who are puzzled about ‘A-level’, it is the required examination (Advanced) level for entry to university, in other words, a pretty good standard of mathematics required, but not PhD level.
How many more wheels are there on the bus to fall off?
I remember reading this statement in AR4 saying “there is no statistical increase of hurricanes” but “it is likely they will increase”.
Will any not skewed fundamental IPCC claim stand up?
I’d better submit my grant for Obamamoney soon before the fear is killed.
I was thinking of painting the moon black – that’d cool things off right? I imagine it’ll be at least as effective as cap n’ trade.
Two hurricanes (cyclones) now in the southern hemisphere
http://www.sailwx.info/hurricanes/hurricanes.phtml
“Yes, but the underlying science is undisputed. Besides that, all the measures we take like the introduction of wind, solar and bio fuels are necessary because we will run out of oil anyway”.
Response Environmental Minister Cramer in the Netherlands, answering the question what’s wrong with the IPCC AR-4 report.
This is the standard world wide response of the entire political warmists gang, pushing the scare and their policies despite ClimateGate, IPCC AR-4 Gates, conflicting scientific reports, or (criminal) investigations into the practices of the scientists.
Record snowfall and below average winters have been caused by AGW as well.
The public attending the televised interview were applauding the wisdom of this Minister who was a scientist before she started her political career.
And how did she respond to the Jones interview where the statement was made about the lack of Global warming since 1995?
Well, the newspaper was wrong! Jones never said that!
Another applause, the Minister leaves and the moderator wishes her well with her most difficult task.
It will take a huge effort to change the public opinion about AGW in the Netherlands.
Let alone change the Government policies.
Another lie, when will they stop?
I am constantly gratified to find one (online) newspaper that makes it a habit to publish articles that tweak the nose of the establishment. Hats off to that iconoclastic rag, The Register, Biting the hand that feeds IT.
It was the register that first gave me facts to support my growing suspicion that AGW was BS. I am fairly sure The Register led me to WUWT, also.
cheers,
gary
Audit the IPCC!
No surprise. The IPCC has sadly tried to hype the possible results of global warming in some kind of whirlwind through every place on earth from the trials of the lesser spotted green tree lizard of Upper Volta through too many storms in Karachi. And every politician in every town, city and state has jumped on the opportunity.
The result – everyone not originally in the choir has become an outright skeptic. And now the IPCC, and their cheerleaders, are wondering why no one is listening to them.
The Ghosts of Climates Past demonstrate huge changes in climate with no human interference, and that in itself should have made the IPCC cautious about attributing every change to humans.
Well, they got the short-term gain from hyping. Now the long-term pain..
I seem to recall a good Dr.? threaten to sue IPCC to have his name removed over the hurricane issue.
This is not surprising as Craig Loehle published something similar last year which was taken up by Joe Bastardi at Accuweather. Others (Judith Curry I think) have claimed that although the total energy has not increased the number of severe storms has.
IPCC/TERI chief Pachauri denies the existence of additional IPCC errors.
http://climategate2009.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/climategate-pachauri-denies-ipcc-errors/
I read saw this phrase recently and thought it pretty apt (wish I had penned it!!)
“now that ‘Climate Change’ can be restored to its orignal name of ‘Seasons’……”
from
http://www.northstarnational.com/2010/02/16/childhood-obesity-hunger-left%E2%80%99s-global-warming/
(Please delete prior message with wrong video)
IPCC/TERI chief Pachauri denies the existence of additional IPCC errors
Les Hatton’s analysis is able to test three and only three of the IPCC statements on hurricanes:
1. There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North At-
lantic since the 1970s.
2. There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes.
3. Other regions appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity
as well.
Statistically, to confirm 1 both an increase in intensity should be seen and the null hypothesis should be rejected at a significant level. To confirm 2 the null hypothesis of a clear trend, whether positive or negative, should not be rejected. Finally, to confirm 3, an increase in intensity should be seen, but it need not be significant – the inclusion of “appear to” is obviously weakening this statement considerably.
Here are the results with Hatton’s calculated t-statistics and significance:
1. Confirmed: null hypothesis of no increase in major hurricanes, rejected at the 5% level, t =1.81; null hypothesis of no change in the proportion of hurricanes maturing into major hurricanes, rejected at the 5% level, t = 1.68
2. Confirmed: there has been an increase, but at t = 1.21 this is not significant.
3. Confirmed: null hypothesis of no increase in major hurricanes, t =0.57, an increase but not significant; null hypothesis of no change in the proportion of hurricanes maturing into major hurricanes, t = 0.24, an increase but not significant.
The remainder of Hatton’s conclusions regarding the IPCC statements on hurricanes rest on his views of climate modelling (he’s not a fan), but he doesn’t consider any of the models’ results.
Hatton confirm’s the IPCC statements on hurricanes where he can, and snarls at the rest. Does trouble loom for the IPCC? Not on the basis of Hatton’s analysis.
“I was thinking of painting the moon black – that’d cool things off right? I imagine it’ll be at least as effective as cap n’ trade”
and cheaper, probably.
Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia had this to say at the BBC Radio Live.
“I do think actually the IPCC is probably past its sell by date.”
The full Radio 5 segment with Mike Hulme, Richard North and Roger Harrabin the BBC Environment Analyst is at this link)
http://climategate2009.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/climategate-science-under-the-microscope/
@ Robert
> As an aside, the notion that work questioning the IPCC’s conclusions is an “x-gate,” i.e., a scandal, is ridiculous. It’s irresponsible and indicative of ignorance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry to imply that work questioning your conclusions is a stain or your integrity or even a big deal.
It shouldn’t be…
but until quite recently anybody who dared to criticise, or was even slightly skeptical of, any part of the consensus/IPCC conclusion was
(a) labelled a denier, and/or compared to a holocaust denier, even a Nazi
(b) told they were unscientific and anti-science
(c) told their work/ideas/criticisms were irrelevant because of the mountain of peer-review articles on the consensus/IPCC side.
Actually, strike that… well the bit about “until quite recently”… in fact, it’s still happening. Gordon Brown, Bill Nye, and realclimate, and quite a few others, are still arguing the above.
When the public discussion is largely conducted in the mode of politics (forming a consensus) rather than science (welcome skepticism as offering potential tests of a theory)… then it’s hardly surprising that the criticisms also follow the mode of politics (X-gate)
thegoodlocust (01:14:29) :
What your need is a jumbo can of asteroid black somewhat darker than the Mare on the Moon. Perhaps a powderized asteroid or two sent in the general direction would do the trick? Chondrite is too bright and Iron-Nickel is too shiny. No need to do a Sherman Willams on it, one side will suffice.
And less than 1 hour after posting, Rene gets downgraded to ‘tropical storm’
status…
If there’s supposed to be a ‘gate here, I wish these posts would actually quote the statement from the IPCC that is supposed to be wrong, and show how it has been disproved. That’s not done in this post, not in Orlowski’s article. If you track down to Hatton’s pdf via his website, then you do, as Tom P says, find some formal statements. But as Tom also says, it’s most unclear that Hatton has actually disproved them.
Tom P, see Ryan Maue’s graph of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, which is at a 30 year low.
================================
“Status? Presented, submitted, published?”
Knocked on the head by people ‘redefining what the peer review literature is”?
If climategate reveals only one thing it’s that the peer review process is deeply flawed and the old canard “It’s not published’ is dead.
Oh and the argument about publication in no way impacts on the truth of what is being sadi (or untruth for that matter)
Am I the only one to see the solar cycle in the picture above, with a one to two year lag? Agreed, statistically it will not be significant, but my human pattern recognition mode says there are minima around 09. 98, 88 and 77
kim (03:56:46) :
“Tom P, see Ryan Maue’s graph of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, which is at a 30 year low.”
Agreed. There’s also no clear trend in either ACE or, as the IPCC stated, the number of tropical hurricanes.
Oh please stop!
Don’t you know that some of us need to do other things; like working, eating and sleeping?!?
Here you are, constantly published interesting, informative and indepth expose’s on the greatest scam ever and I am “forced” to read and understand it all!?!
On a more serious note; a big thank you for challenging the orthodoxy and educating those who wish to hear.
I am still waiting to see if even one part of the IPCC scam can be proven close’ish to accurate.
A comedy show in Aus, decade or so ago, used the expression “business – scam – corporation” to describe the phases of a ‘good’ idea – it just seems appropriate in these circumstances!
I’m starting to worry.
What am I going to do with my spare time when I don’t have global warming to read about and laugh at anymore?
Nick Stokes (03:12:40) writes:
If there’s supposed to be a ‘gate here, I wish these posts would actually quote the statement from the IPCC that is supposed to be wrong, and show how it has been disproved. That’s not done in this post, not in Orlowski’s article.
The IPCC’s statements on hurricanes: “Intense tropical cyclone activity increase: Likely (>66%) in some regions since 1970”
For some people, it’s a scandal even if you admit up front that there’s a one in three chance you’re data does not correctly represent reality. Despite this, I predict a 90 percent chance that we will see more references to this as some sort of “scandal” by the IPCC.
To ‘Old Contruction Worker’.
It was Dr Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute and WHO, who threatened legal action because the IPCC had claimed he supported their bullshit on tropical diseases.
Tom P 4:54:25
Good, we have some agreement. Now explain why the IPCC conception of greater intensity of storms came about. Isn’t it because of the supposedly higher energy in storm systems with AGW? Granted, a total figure does not say much about those individual figures used to sum the total, but the evidence that individual figures are greater now than in the past is absent.
Time to revisit Landsea vs Trenberth.
===========================
”..all the measures we take like the introduction of wind, solar and bio fuels are necessary because we will run out of oil anyway” (Environmental Minister Cramer)
It is similarly clever idea like wearing short sleeve t-shirt today, since in the summer it will be warm anyway :-/
Gerard (04:27:19) :
Am I the only one to see the solar cycle in the picture above, with a one to two year lag? Agreed, statistically it will not be significant, but my human pattern recognition mode says there are minima around 09. 98, 88 and 77
In evolutionary terms a false positive is harmless.
Surely, Robert, you are not suggesting that the WWF, Greenpeace and other advocacy literature that the IPCC relied on are peer-reviewed scientific studies. And I hope you are not suggesting that the IPCC cited articles from mountaineering and travel magazines are also peer-reviewed scientific studies. If so, I would suggest you go look at those sources again.
As a person who lives at ground zero for hurricanes, I can say real hurricanes are decidedly down. And all the NHC tiny tims are not doing anything to help the real records. Now we need two sets of books, else the old data be useless.
hmmm isn’t this what happened to surface temperature records? They were massaged so much they just disappeared.
You would think no one at the IPCC knows math.
Nick Stokes,
“…it’s most unclear that Hatton has actually disproved them. (IPCC statements on future hurricanes.)”
How can one ‘disprove’ random conjecture about the future? For example, if I say the Earth will experience a 10 fold increase in earthquakes in 40-50 years, how can anyone prove that I am wrong? No one can! Does that mean we should immediately, therefore, demand that all structures be built to new and expensive earthquake standards while we slowly evacuate places like California? I doubt that you would think so.
The IPCC statements about the future of hurricanes are not based on any observable data. In fact, the observable data argues against the IPCC claim, which I think is the beginning of Hatton’s point. The IPCC statements are based on models that are built with oversimplified assumptions that the current data shows to be untrue. So why should we believe these models?
It would be one thing if these same models had a long track record of success and were out of step only on this one issue. Then maybe we would have to give the models the benefit of the doubt. But the models have not been correct about ANYTHING of significance or duration! Only a fool would give these models the benefit of the doubt on hurricane prediction!
The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.”
So this is a “gate…” how, again?
See Kevin Trenberth’s REAL travesty
This is why they hammer on 2035 and 2100 forecasts. They are harder to refute. Current forecasting major failings are hurtfull and detrimental. I notice some portray their graphs and long term claims as if they are facts.
There is a word called oscillation. It has upts and downs. The extremists plot their lines using the upward slopes. The starting points are conveniently low markings.
Before anyone sees an external forcing (Sun, moon, stars, cosmos, magnetic anything, center of the universe, etc) of the downward sloping “pumping” action in the graph, look for internal conditions, IE Earth’s own weather parameters, to see if natural causes are at work. Among these would be the timing of the AO, PDO, ENSO, and Atlantic oscillations and conditions. Hurricanes need warm water and a lack of the Easterlies peeling that warm layer away. During the peak years, was the water warm and the Easterlies asleep?
We need to distinguish between two different cases.
In one case, the IPCC makes a statement that is either false or not supported by the literature available up to the chosen cutoff date.
In the other case, IPCC makes a statement that later turns out to be incorrect.
The AR4 is not meant to be a living document that is updated continually as time progresses and new data is acquired. While the IPCC has many problems, it is unfair to attack IPCC for guesses that, while supported by literature and data at the time they were made, later turned out to be incorrect.
Tom and Nick, Pllleeeeaaaassssseeeeeee …
We all heard the claims that Katrina’s will become the norm supposedly based on the IPCC report. We also know of Trenberth’s refusal to tone down the IPCC statements even after the top hurricane researcher resigned the IPCC.
So, spare us your nonsense. Spare us your silly attempts to downplay what the IPCC claimed. Spare us your but, but, buts ….
How many shoes does the IPCC have in its closet?
Because with the IPCC, you don’t have to wait long for the “other shoe to drop”.
Wall Street Journal;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn
Nick Stokes (03:12:40) :
>>If there’s supposed to be a ‘gate here, I wish these posts would actually quote the statement from the IPCC that is supposed to be wrong, and show how it has been disproved. That’s not done in this post, not in Orlowski’s article. If you track down to Hatton’s pdf via his website, then you do, as Tom P says, find some formal statements. But as Tom also says, it’s most unclear that Hatton has actually disproved them.<<
I'm not sure the objective is to disprove these statements so much as to point out that the statements are not based on the data. Some of these statements are only the opinion of "experts," not supported by data at all, or only provide the "bad" news side of the story. Hatton is just pointing this out.
The IPCC states that "Intense tropical cyclone activity increases is likely in some regions since 1970." This is a true statement. But that's just the bad news. The good news, as Hatton shows, is that other regions have seen lessened intense tropical cyclone activity since 1970. Why isn't that mentioned in the summary for policymakers?
Further, the IPCC states that "Intense tropical cyclone activity increases is more likely than not attributable to human influences." This statement is just based on the opinion of "experts." The footnote actually reads… "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies."
At least the IPCC had the sense to tell us that that this is just someone's best guess and not supported by data. But how can you disprove it, then? Better yet, if it can't be disproven, and hasn't been proven, should it be included in the report?
Tom P (02:16:26) :
….
Here are the results with Hatton’s calculated t-statistics and significance:
1. Confirmed: null hypothesis of no increase in major hurricanes, rejected at the 5% level, t =1.81; null hypothesis of no change in the proportion of hurricanes maturing into major hurricanes, rejected at the 5% level, t = 1.68
2. Confirmed: there has been an increase, but at t = 1.21 this is not significant.
3. Confirmed: null hypothesis of no increase in major hurricanes, t =0.57, an increase but not significant; null hypothesis of no change in the proportion of hurricanes maturing into major hurricanes, t = 0.24, an increase but not significant.
Depend on our resident anti-skeptic to present the results of a skeptical analysis in the worst possible light. Which is okay, because we do want to understand any weaknesses in skeptical presentations. And I have a question or two about this study, myself.
But first: these are hardly representative of the complete results of this paper. Talk about cherry picking! These are results for the Atlantic basin. The author looks at other regions, also, and then combines them all for a global analysis. Only in the Atlantic region were the results favorable to Tom P’s POV.
Now for my concerns, or questions. I’ve skimmed through the report, looking for some specific indication of whether the t tests are one tailed, or two tailed, but if that is indicated, I’ve missed it. But the result that Tom P reports, for item #1, where a t of 1.81 is said to be significant at the 5% level can be true only of a one tailed test. One tailed tests are appropriate only under unique circumstances, and never just to make it easier to achieve statistical significance. I’m not sure a good case can be made for using a one tailed test here. Yes, the interest is in whether hurricane activity has increased. But that is not enough of a rationale to justify a one tailed test. If it is possible that hurricane activity has decreased, and if this is an outcome worth knowing, then sound methodology dictates a two tailed test.
Then I’ve got a question about the way the samples were compared. Were the years 1946-1998 treated as one sample, and 1999-2009 as another sample, and then the means compared and tested? Or was the mean of 1999-2009 tested against the mean of 1946-2009? I cannot tell, but I have a suspicion that it is the latter, which does not strike me as appropriate. Moreover, either way, I cannot replicate the t of 1.81. When I compare 1946-1998, which has a mean number of major hurricanes (MH) of 2.4340 per year, and an S.D. of 1.8863, to 1999-2009, which has a mean MH of 3.7273 per hear, and an S.D. of 1.7939, the test comes out like this:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Null hypothesis: Difference of means = 0
Sample 1:
n = 53, mean = 2.434, s.d. = 1.8863
standard error of mean = 0.259103
95% confidence interval for mean: 1.91407 to 2.95393
Sample 2:
n = 11, mean = 3.7273, s.d. = 1.7939
standard error of mean = 0.540881
95% confidence interval for mean: 2.52214 to 4.93246
Test statistic: t(62) = (2.434 – 3.7273)/0.620145 = -2.08548
Two-tailed p-value = 0.04115
(one-tailed = 0.02057)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here the t is -2.08, not 1.81 (ignore the difference in sign). If I compare 1999-2009 to the entire period, which is what I think Hatton may have done, I get the following:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Null hypothesis: Difference of means = 0
Sample 1:
n = 64, mean = 2.6563, s.d. = 1.9208
standard error of mean = 0.2401
95% confidence interval for mean: 2.1765 to 3.1361
Sample 2:
n = 11, mean = 3.7273, s.d. = 1.7939
standard error of mean = 0.540881
95% confidence interval for mean: 2.52214 to 4.93246
Test statistic: t(73) = (2.6563 – 3.7273)/0.62143 = -1.72344
Two-tailed p-value = 0.08904
(one-tailed = 0.04452)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now the t is -1.72, and is only significant at the 5% level for a one tailed test; for a 2 tailed test it is only significant at the 10% level. Incidentally, or maybe notably, I cannot find support for the 1.81 in Hatton’s spreadsheet. I find a 1.70, which I think may be his attempt at the 1946-2009 vs. 1999-2009 comparison for MH in the Atlantic Basin. Close, but I’m not passing out cigars because we should be able to exactly replicated this.
Now while I never can trust Tom P to tell the whole story, it is bothersome that something as simple as this cannot be readily replicated, or even understood from the original paper or the data itself. While Hatton can be commended for releasing the data in an Excel spreadsheet, the presentation of the statistical results in that spreadsheet is difficult, if not impossible, to follow, and doesn’t seem to agree with the numbers in the paper.
This is pretty basic stuff. I’m not sure Hatton handled it very well.
OT: whatever happened with the Monckton/Lambert debate?
Lambert is claiming victory, as you’d expect, but it’s curious in the extreme that I can’t find the video or transcripts. It’s almost as if neither side comported itself all that well.
Summation is purportedly here, but I can’t view it right now.
All they want, at the end of the day, is to save CARBON TRADE. It will go on, no matter a hundred thousands Climate Gates. It’s too big a business to lose it. Just imagine! it means making money out of a trace gas without even taking any care if it provokes or not any warming at all. All they are experts in making money out of nothing, of diligently pouring the empty into the void and convince us we have to pay our lives for it. Believers and deniers alike, we all, will have to pay them, this is our fate!. Just take your SOMA and keep smiling!!. Very famous and intelligent professors will tell you a beautiful tale for you to sleep and , if you don’t, they will tell you the world is going to end in a very very ugly nightmarish way if you don’t behave as they wish you to do.
Slarti @ 7:31. I saw the summation and Monckton whomped Lambert. I particularly liked his point that recent and repeated calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2 from measurements rather than from models have showed a small sensitivity. And, of course, Monckton’s emphasis on poverty for his ultimate point, which was the crux of the eruption in Copenhagen.
But by all means, keep searching for the summary. It is devastating, and a metric for Tim Lambert’s delusions.
================================
re: Tom P (02:16:26)
I’m just in browsing mode, and I don’t have time to dig into this but …
What are the degrees of freedom here? Obviously, you’re using one-tailed tests, since with such puny values of t, none of them would be significant with two-tailed tests. Since a one-tailed test requires a directional hypothesis, I don’t think it would be appropriate for hypothesis 2, and t = 1.21 isn’t even close to being significant for a two-tailed test (it has to be about twice that at least). In this case, I don’t know what is meant by “confirmed”; nor do I understand the argument here in regard to hypothesis 3.
Basil 7:30:40 Tom P cherry-picking? Hey wasn’t he defending the enchanted orchard at Yamal?
====================================
Tom Moriarty @ 6:28:30
Oh, very nice. Your link shows Kevin Trenberth using a high Accumulated Cyclone Energy to justify belief in AGW. Now that ACE is low? Well, we don’t hear from him. We hear from Tom P.
===========================
Tom P (04:54:25) :
Nick Stokes (03:12:40) :
10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes)
Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results. NOT VERIFIED – JUST A FORMAL STATEMENT
3.8.3.2 North Atlantic
In 2005, the North Atlantic ACE was the third highest since 1948, – NOT EVEN TRUE
Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons)
Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones. NOT PROVEN
FAQ 3.3 Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?
However, numbers of hurricanes in the North Atlantic have also been above normal in 9 of the last 11 years, culminating in the record-breaking 2005 season. REALLY, IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE IT?
16.3.1.3 Extreme events
These suggest a strong possibility of higher risks of more persistent and devastating tropical cyclones in a warmer world. WITH OUR “RECORD BREAKING” TEMPERATURES IN THE 2000S WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE LOTS OF THIS, WOULDN’T WE?
Just how many holes do you want me to pick in this so called “Settled Science”, or do you now admit they were just guessing?
rw (07:42:09) :
I think we cross-posted. I agree that the tests appear to be one tailed, and question the appropriateness of that. But I also think that the “samples” were not properly compared, and that when they are, the MH is significantly higher, in the Atlantic Basin, for 1999-2009, even with a two tailed test. I think all of this may detract from what might really be the more important thing here, which was to look at all the basins, not just the Atlantic Basin. But that seems to have been marred by some questionable statistics.
I think my bona fides as a “skeptic” are unquestionable. And I’m finding it very hard to find anything worth getting excited about in this paper. I think it is very poorly done. I think there may be errors, both in methodology, and in actual calculations. I think it has some merit, but in the day when I peer reviewed, it is the kind of paper I would have recommended rejecting, with a long list of things the author would need to do to merit publication.
All of that said, I took the author’s data for the MH (major hurricanes) in the Atlantic basin, and did a simple “Chow test” on the data. I let my software use a default setting for the break point, which turned out to be 1977. With that, I got:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Augmented regression for Chow test
OLS estimates using the 64 observations 1946-2009
Dependent variable: MH
HAC standard errors, bandwidth 2 (Bartlett kernel)
coefficient std. error t-ratio p-value
——————————————————–
const 4.07097 0.774295 5.258 2.04E-06 ***
time -0.0770161 0.0384035 -2.005 0.0494 **
splitdum -5.72516 1.32011 -4.337 5.62E-05 ***
sd_time 0.163246 0.0450271 3.626 0.0006 ***
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All variables highly significant. The basic trend, until 1977, was downward. Then the trend after 1977 is upward.
So what? How does this “prove” AGW? Why were the number of MH’s trending downward for three decades? Were we driving our vehicles backwards, removing CO2 from the atmosphere back in day? Or are we looking at a multidecadal pattern of natural climate variation?
While I appreciate all the drubbing that IPCC has been getting, one thing to point out is that even when IPCC was right on the numbers, it may have well been very wrong on the cause. We do not need to prove that the number of MH’s were not increasing, in some statistically significant fashion, in recent years, to question the IPCC’s conclusions in the matter. Besides the obvious debunking that has gone on lately, the IPCC is one of the clearest examples of special pleading you’ll see anywhere outside of a courtroom. As such, it has absolutely no credibility as a scientific document, and anyone who thinks so, who genuinely thinks so, is either not a scientist, or is a poor excuse for one.
Les Hatton’s analysis wouldn’t pass peer review for a variety of reasons. This whole IPCC-gate with the hurricanes is a LOT of nonsense and amateurish, I hate to say.
For those interested in learning about the ocean’s influence on climate, here’s a short primer on the AMO/PDO: click
This submittal is slightly off topic. But in the context of IPCC AR4 report and its many “gates” I submit this to the blog with the hope of getting feedback.
Here are a set of statements taken out of context from an opt-ed piece in the Albuquerque Journal on February 15. The author is PhD Physicist from Sandia Laboratories. There is so much wrong with the op-ed I would have write another one to refute and explain the errors in this op-ed. But, I think I should tell the editors of the paper something. They need to be held accountable for “anti-science”. Any suggestions or should I just forget it?
The Wegman report was submitted in 2006. I down loaded the Mashey report. It seems to be more of a rant against the conservative “think tanks” The evidence for a criminal act is not clear. The statements:
1.The first decade of this century was the warmest ever recorded in human history
2. Ice is melting at an accelerating rate and the sea level is rising.
3. Weather patterns are changing as the atmosphere and oceans adjust to the warming
4. The successful predictions of global warming theory represent a major scientific achievement.
5. In 1998 a team of scientists combined thermometer measurements with pre-instrumental temperature measurements determined from tree rings and other natural records. The resulting graph demonstrated how exceptional the recent rapid warming has been, rising so sharply, it looked like the blade of a hockey stick.
6. The hockey stick became the iconic symbol of global warming, even though it was only one of the many lines of evidence.
7. To many researchers, the investigation was nothing more that an anti-science witch hunt. Scientists play by well defined rules. They require peer-reviewed publication, logic, and evidence.
8.The embattled scientists were understandably angry and were not always circumspect in their private messages. They had not expected that political activists- willing to tap phones and break into computers- to steal their correspondence. They hadn’t done anything wrong, but their words were twisted and taken out of context, e-mails were published by bloggers and broadcast media for who controversy and conflict trumps accuracy and fair play. This non-scandal became known as “Climategate”.
9. The actual scandal is associated with the hockey stick congressional inquiry. Last month a blogger called “Deep Climate” demonstrated that, in cruel irony, the Wegman team actually used material plagiarized from a textbook written by one of those scientists under investigation. The meaning of the stolen text was changed.
10. New evidence continues to mount. Independent investigator John Mashey has just released a report in which he meticulously builds the case a corrupt and probably criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress in the hockey stick investigation. The real scandal to investigate is one that appears to involve a deliberate high-level scheme to undermine research, create confusion and impede progress on science-informed climate policy.
Is it my imagination , or does there to be a coincidence with the short sunspot cycle? The 11 year cycle? Might cosmic rays or the lack thereof be a causal factor?
Ryan Maue (08:31:32) :
Les Hatton’s analysis wouldn’t pass peer review for a variety of reasons. This whole IPCC-gate with the hurricanes is a LOT of nonsense and amateurish, I hate to say.
I hate to say it too, but I agree.
Bootnote (From the Regsiter Story above)
‘The IPCC’s AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center’s chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth.
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
Critics point out that an increase in low-intensity storms being recorded is due to better instrumentation. Most are at sea, and thanks to radar and satellites, more are now observed.’
Robert (00:29:31) :
Status? Presented, submitted, published?
Robert we dont need your stinking “pal reviewed” science. We dont need to worry about whether a paper will be held up and published when Mann wants it publsihed ( yes if they couldnt stop a paper they tried to influence WHEN it was published). We don’t have to worry about reviwers colluding
on the response ( see Jones and Osborn and Mann) we don’t have to worry about the editor being “comprimised” because they are building a file on him ( as Mann suggested) we dont have be concerned with asking editors (Schneider) to invent new categories ( provisionally accepted) for us. No,
we dont need your stinking pal review. We have something better. If the guy
who wrote this posts his data and code, then others will tear it apart RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES. Not anonomously behind your back.
oh hey look Basil is on the job, and hey look ryan is here. No months in review with stupid word limits and page fees. Welcome to the internet.
“As an aside, the notion that work questioning the IPCC’s conclusions is an “x-gate,” i.e., a scandal, is ridiculous. It’s irresponsible and indicative of ignorance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry to imply that work questioning your conclusions is a stain or your integrity or even a big deal.”
GOOD, then you would agree with me that when the people at CRU didnt want to correct a Henry Lamb graph that made its way into the IPCC report because they didnt want to hurt his reputation ( their words its in the mails )it was irresponsible and showed ignorance of the scientific method. So you agree with us about CRU’s behavior in this matter. Good.
mandolinjon 8:41:39
Two names for your perusal. Wegman and Jolliffe. Decentered PCA is not an appropriate statistical technique as used by MBH ’98, and just how the world learned this fact is not as important as the fact itself.
=====================
@ Ryan Maue (08:31:32) :
If you hate to say it why are you? If there are a number of reasons why it won’t be published how about telling us one?
While the IPCC has many problems, it is unfair to attack IPCC for guesses that, while supported by literature and data at the time they were made, later turned out to be incorrect.
I agree 100%. After all, even a brief look at the methods of the ipcc’s “Climate Science” should have revealed to everyone that the ipcc statements never had any more real credibility to begin with than the conclusions of “studies” which support the efficacy of OTC “Male Enhancers”.
How could anyone have ever thought otherwise?
Hatton gets at least one thing right – his manuscript is unpublishable.
This is the IPCC AR4 WG1 chapter 3 Executive Summary
“Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased since about 1970. Variations in tropical cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons are dominated by ENSO and decadal variability, which result in a redistribution of tropical storm numbers and their tracks, so that increases in one basin are often compensated by decreases over other oceans. Trends are apparent in SSTs and other critical variables that influence tropical thunderstorm and tropical storm development. Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a significant upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer lifetimes and greater storm intensity, and such trends are strongly correlated with tropical SST. These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5 globally since 1970 even as total number of cyclones and cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins. The largest increase was in the North Pacific, Indian and southwest Pacific Oceans. However, numbers of hurricanes in the North Atlantic have also been above normal (based on 1981–2000 averages) in 9 of the last 11 years, culminating in the record-breaking 2005 season. Moreover, the first recorded tropical cyclone in the South Atlantic occurred in March 2004 off the coast of Brazil.”
How does Hatton’s analysis challenge this?
Basil (08:06:33) :
“…these are hardly representative of the complete results of this paper. Talk about cherry picking! These are results for the Atlantic basin. The author looks at other regions, also, and then combines them all for a global analysis. Only in the Atlantic region were the results favorable to Tom P’s POV.”
As the thrust of the paper was to test the basis of the IPCC statements, which concentrated on the Atlantic, it’s hardly surprising that Hatton himself selected those relevant parts of his analysis for his conclusions. It’s therefore absurd to make an accusation of cherry picking on that score, either by him or me.
rw (07:42:09) :
“What are the degrees of freedom here? Obviously, you’re using one-tailed tests, since with such puny values of t, none of them would be significant with two-tailed test.”
You’re getting very confused. I’m reading, not writing this paper. I’m just quoting Hatton’s figures!
Ryan Maue (08:31:32) :
“Les Hatton’s analysis wouldn’t pass peer review for a variety of reasons.”
I also agree. It looks like he both messed up his statistics as well as misinterpreting his own analysis.
Note that the chart goes through 2009. The “scandal” here involves the IPCC’s 2007 report failing to take into account data from the future.
And even the ipcc itself offered the ultimate disclaimer as to the likely truth of any of its “science” by not requiring countries containing about 5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.5 billion people to have to believe its claims and swallow the alleged cure implied by the results of its “science”! So why in the world would anyone else have to believe its allegations and take its “medicine”?
It’s not the ipcc’s fault if people can’t read.
Basil (08:23:09) : you said
“We do not need to prove that the number of MH’s were not increasing, in some statistically significant fashion, in recent years, to question the IPCC’s conclusions in the matter.”
Why do we not need to prove it, if it is not a correct statement?
It is the basis of many sections of the AR4 document.
Can you also say what the Upward Trend from 1977 actually was?
@ Tom T … my disappointment comes about whenever a scientist submits something that is rejected. I’ll prepare a post on this rather than just bullet point in the comments.
Tom T 9:37:23
I hate to speak for Ryan, but ‘I hate to say it’ is a colloquialism that does not have literal meaning. What I think he means to say is that he regrets that Hatton’s critique is not robust(I wash my mouth out with soap) in its technique, as has been pointed out by Basil and rw.
Now, I’d hate to hear your response.
=====================================
Am I the only one that keeps hearing the lyrics of Queen’s “Another One Bites the Dust” in their head when they read the next “the data does not support the conclusion” news item.
Ta Dumm Dumm Dumm
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone and another one gone
Another one bites the dust hey
Hey I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
Larry
With respect to Deep Climate and the so-called Wegman story, it appears that Deep Climate is entirely unconscious of the fact that his whole thrust is an attempt to kill the messenger and avoid dealing with the message.
This moth-eaten rhetoric is emblematic of the alarmists arguments from the beginning, as exemplified by Phil Jones’ walk back of so much of the cant of the last decade.
===============================
What’s amusing is that Deep Climate and the acolytes really think they have a devastating story there. The devastation actually was Ian Jolliffe’s little discussion of decentered PCA with Tamino of the Closed Mind, he who sees as through a glass darkly.
==============================
ryanm @ 10:00:17.
I bate my breath.
==========
Tom P (09:47:59) :
Nay, Tom, it looks more like your criteria are instead the exact qualifiers which allow a study to pass Climate Science’s peer review, you know, like the peer review which passed the Briffa paper proving that the Global Warming Mean strikes only one tree on the Yamal Penninsula.
@ kim While the data analysis may be correct, with the data that is available (with all of the necessary quality caveats), his interpretation is off. The methodology is off, that statistics are off. The lack of references and background tell me that this guy does not have a handle on what is already in the literature.
My “I hate to say it” is an editorial comment aimed at the readers and commentators on this blog that yearn for some sort of silver bullet to combat the hurricanes and global warming linkages in the IPCC literature. The data is just too bad to make many conclusions with ultimate certainty. So, it is a disappointment when supposed new papers come out that are a waste of time.
mandolinjon (08:41:39),
Some thoughts about your numbered list:
1. Ridiculous. Human history goes back much farther than 3 decades, as do the temperature records: click. The climate is well within the parameters of past natural variability.
2. Ice is decreasing in the Arctic, and increasing in the Antarctic. That’s why they avoid mentioning the Antarctic. And even if the Arctic ice melts and there is open water, that event happens repeatedly. It is caused by natural climate variability.
3. Again, natural climate variability completely explains weather patterns, which are always changing. There is no need to invoke a trace gas. In fact, Occam’s Razor tells us not to throw in extraneous items such as CO2: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Natural variability is sufficient to explain it all.
4. GCMs [climate models] have been unable to make successful, reliable predictions. For example, not one GCM was able to predict the flat to declining temperatures over most of the past decade: click. Neither was the IPCC, which, as usual, incorrectly assumed skyrocketing temperatures.
5. The Mann Hokey Stick, which is what the writer was referring to, has been thoroughly debunked: click
6. Yes, Mann’s hokey stick became an icon of the CAGW alarmists. Now that icon has been shown to be based on sloppy science, using treemometers spliced into the instrumental record. That’s why its debunking is so painful to them. Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is now a parody.
7. False. There was scientific misconduct. And there is voluminous evidence showing that the climate peer review system has been gamed by a small clique of insiders for their own benefit.
8. “They hadn’t done anything wrong,” eh? Then why is Phil Jones out of a job, and why are there multiple ongoing investigations, with more to follow?
9. I was not aware of plagiarism charges. If true, someone on the Wegman et al. team owes an explanation. But whether true or not, that is still a strawman argument. The Wegman conclusions show that a relatively small clique of scientists have gamed the climate peer review system for their own benefit. Those charges have never been successfully refuted.
10. Bring. It. On. In any legal proceeding both sides have the right to discovery and cross examination. Let everyone put all their cards on the table for once, under the spotlight of public scrutiny.
IMHO, the Albuquerque Journal writer is a partisan hack, and he can not back up most of his assertions. I wouldn’t expect them to give you equal time to debunk his nonsense. But good luck.
And exactly who are these “Peers of the scientific realm” that scientists must have the approval of in order for papers to be published? When these “Peers” are of an inclusive mutual admiration society, all preaching the same dogma, skepticism, the backbone of the scientific method, is completely excluded. Science has been done away with entirely, and only dogma remains.
It shouldn’t require a PhD in some arcane field of science to recognize when basic fundamentals of physics and chemistry are being ignored in favor of some promotion of dogma. Extrapolation is not in the least scientific, and statistical analysis is merely a manipulation of numbers, not scientific in the least.
So we don’t have the luxury of waiting for results of scientific method? In my opinion, better to wait for the science to be determined than to assure impoverishment of all of us but the insiders of the “carbon trading” scam.
Assumptions need to be tested, not by producing some new computer models, but by rigorous testing in a reality mode. It would be quite possible to test, for instance, under laboratory conditions, whether tree ring analysis is or isn’t a valid proxy of temperatures. In my own opinion, tree ring analysis is worthless for this purpose because of more than one reason. Proper testing would provide real answers as opposed to mere arguments of opinion.
Statical analysis isn’t science, nor is it scientific in the least.
But then, I have no qualifications to be one of those “Peers of the scientific realm”. I do know a good deal of the fundamentals of both chemistry and physics, and am reasonably competent in scenting out scams. AGW stinks to high heaven. How many times does a scientist have to be lied to by the same group before that scientist is able to determine that said scientist is dealing with professional liars?
ryanm 10:32:57 Thank you very much for what I’ll take as the definitive word on the subject.
For now, heh.
===============
Since we are on the “-gate” lingo, we could call Mann’s indiscretions and his university’s whitewash of the same:
PennStateGate.
[LOL]
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Richard Telford (09:47:49) :
“How does Hatton’s analysis challenge this?”
It depends on what you are talking about. Hatton isn’t discussing everything the IPCC talked about in this paper. So we need to limit it to what Hatton says here.
IPCC Statement: “Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased since about 1970.”
Hatton shows this to be wrong. Only the North Atlantic showed any increase. Globally speaking, there has been no increase.
IPCC says: “Variations in tropical cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons are dominated by ENSO and decadal variability, which result in a redistribution of tropical storm numbers and their tracks, so that increases in one basin are often compensated by decreases over other oceans.”
Hatton shows this is indeed the case AND how this statement can be in contradiction to the above claim that “intense tropical cyclone activity has increased.”
Hatton did not look at the work involving SST’s, so we move on to other claims:
IPCC: “These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5 globally since 1970 even as total number of cyclones and cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins. The largest increase was in the North Pacific, Indian and southwest Pacific Oceans.”
I’ll admit I find the IPCC use of the term “North Pacific” puzzling. Generally speaking, the data is usually divided into “Western Pacific” and “Eastern Pacific”, and that is what Hatton uses.
So, for the Western Pacific Hatton finds:
A) There is no change in the average number of tropical storms:
B) There is no change in the average number of hurricanes:
C) There is no change in the average number of major hurricanes:
D) There is no change in the proportion of hurricanes which mature into major hurricanes:
For the Eastern Pacific:
A) There is no change in the average number of tropical storms:
B) There is no change in the average number of hurricanes:
C) There is no change in the average number of major hurricanes:
D) There is no change in the proportion of hurricanes which mature into major hurricanes:
For Northern Indian Ocean:
A) There is no change in the average number of tropical storms:
B) There is no change in the average number of hurricanes:
C) There is no change in the average number of major hurricanes:
D) There is no change in the proportion of hurricanes which mature into major hurricanes:
For Southern Indian Ocean:
A) There are fewer tropical storms than average: (A CHANGE!)
B) There is no change in the average number of hurricanes:
C) There is no change in the average number of major hurricanes:
D) The proportion of hurricanes that become major has increased (largely because the numbers of total storms has decreased.)
So, lots of the IPCC’s statement is being directly contradicted here.
The Nittany Lyin’s. Sorry all you honest Penn Staters. Do something about it.
=================================
I met the author of this paper many moons ago when I worked in the (shh) oil industry as a Geophysicist
He is a very good scientist and software developer who has combined these two disciplines in a very rigorous way. I don’t think his work is a direct rebuttal of IPCC work, but an example of how easy it is to challenge some of their assertions.
I think we should also note how he has made all the source code and methodologies used available to all to challenge
We need more of this.
I just emailed him to let him know he might have been “slashdotted” (well- watted-dotted”)
The point that current weather reporting technology is much more sensitive than that used in the past reminds me that it is only a few generations ago that the Spanish treasure fleets, returning with plunder from the Americas, were forced to sail across the Pacific and around the globe until they reached a recognised point where they could ‘hang a right’ and find their way back to Spain as they had no clue as to how to measure longitude. All for the want of an accurate timepiece! Quite salutory to realise that even a reliable timepiece was not available until the 18th century and that the Royal Society welched on paying the prizemoney for solving the problems of Longitude for years as Harrison, the village carpenter turned clockmaker was not of the Establishment.
It’s getting ridiculous. A bunch of green marxists thought they could bamboozle the free market out of profits and set up a totalitarian one-world government – all under the guise of fighting deadly “climate change. ”
Well, they have been caught red-handed. They are exposed as thieves and liars. They have lifted billions$$ from western governments and philanthropies and there should be some demand for the players to make restitution.
“steven mosher (09:12:31) :
Robert (00:29:31) :
Status? Presented, submitted, published?
Robert we dont need your stinking “pal reviewed” science.”
I guess it’s fortunate you don’t need it, since by and large, no peer-reviewed science supports your argument that the theory of AGW is false.
I can’t help to but notice, though, the tremendous excitement among commenters here when a paper appears in the peer-reviewed literature which you feel bolsters you claims. Like a gloomy emo kid at the edge of the dance floor, you may think you’re above it all, but in reality, you’re making a virtue of necessity.
Charlie A (07:04:56) :
“While the IPCC has many problems, it is unfair to attack IPCC for guesses that, while supported by literature and data at the time they were made, later turned out to be incorrect.”
Just a bit of background before you fully commit to the AR4 hurricane alarmism.
Despite being warned that the evidence for increased danger from hurricanes was less than convincing, Trenberth refused allow this section to be changed. Even the resignation of the top expert on hurricanes failed to effect a change to a more considered view – not science, but alarm-ism.
So glad our fickle chaotic climate proved this idiot wrong. It is indeed a travesty!
J.Peden (10:23:18) :
“Nay, Tom, it looks more like your criteria are instead the exact qualifiers which allow a study to pass Climate Science’s peer review, you know, like the peer review which passed the Briffa paper proving that the Global Warming Mean strikes only one tree on the Yamal Penninsula.”
Not really:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/413/oyad06.png
Tom P (02:16:26) :”The remainder of Hatton’s conclusions regarding the IPCC statements on hurricanes rest on his views of climate modelling (he’s not a fan), but he doesn’t consider any of the models’ results.”
He also failed to consider the contents of my garbage can out back.
But that’s based on the raw data. You need to adjust and homogenize it. Then you’ll see that we are all doomed to die in an onslaught of hurricanes.
A C Osborn (09:57:11) :
Basil (08:23:09) : you said
“We do not need to prove that the number of MH’s were not increasing, in some statistically significant fashion, in recent years, to question the IPCC’s conclusions in the matter.”
Why do we not need to prove it, if it is not a correct statement?
It is the basis of many sections of the AR4 document.
Can you also say what the Upward Trend from 1977 actually was?
I’m saying that evidence of an increasing number of MH’s is not “sufficient” (as in “sufficient” vs. “necessary”) to conclude that it is associated with AGW. It is the old “correlation is not causation” fallacy. The IPCC is so bad, all around, as a work of special pleading, that even if they got some fact right here and there, it means nothing.
As for what the upward trend from 1977 “actually was,” based on the following, from the Chow test:
sd_time 0.163246 0.0450271 3.626 0.0006 ***
the trend is 0.163246 per year. At that rate, we got one additional major hurricane every 6.125 years. But don’t extrapolate that into the future. That is just what the trend was 1977 to 2009.
Smokey (11:06:33);
Thanks for the input. I am still debating whether the Journal will care to read my comments.
I’ve read all of the blogs on here and I would like to ask one question.
Where is it all going to end?
If the government’s of the world have managed the data and mislead us all. How do we every get them to make things RIGHT?
Re: Rich Horton (Feb 16 12:21),
Well, firstly, props for actually stating what the IPCC said, that is being challenged.
But Hatton didn’t find that there was no change. He found that any change was not statistically significant according to his test. Which doesn’t contradict the IPCC at all.
Statistical significance is a dodgy process here, full of assumptions. The hurricane frequency is not a random process, it is just being modelled as one, using normal distributions. I saw no analysis for normality, and I doubt that one would be successful.
To Basil and Ryan:
I read your comments. Thanks. I noticed my spreadsheet was a) a complete mess after growing organically whilst doing this analysis and b) the version I uploaded did not match the paper. I have updated the paper accordingly, explaining the tests I did (two-tailed and number of degrees of freedom) and re-structured the spreadsheet completely so that people can check it more easily; mea culpa. The beauty of the web is to get good feedback quickly and respond to it. I have also revisioned the paper and the spreadsheet so that they match – 16-Feb-2010v1.
The data is of course unchanged, (as are the original conclusions).
Basil you also mentioned that the datasets should not overlap. Its an interesting question and I can see arguments either way but I don’t know the answer, so I did both – previously I only did the overlap case. It makes no substantial difference to the conclusions even with the Indian Ocean datasets which are unfortunately of dubious quality before 1977.
I hope now that you can more easily duplicate what I did with your own work. The data is separated out into .dat files in the matching zip archive so anybody can have a go.
With regard to my conclusions. The only thing that I added is because of something I noticed looking at the raw North Atlantic data. The rise in major hurricane frequency since the 1970s seems much more subtle to me with evidence of a decline from the 50s to around 1970, a small rise, a plateau for about 25 years, a rise through to the big year of 2005 and a decline to a plateau similar to the 1950s- 1960s since (although its early days yet). In fact, there are all kinds of interesting things going on in the other datasets too.
The rest of my conclusions I stick by.
In response to I think it is Tom P, I didn’t cherry pick, I chose all the ones summarised in WG1 and tested those I could. This is why I freely release everything I do so that you can see for yourself. All I ask in return is that you quote me correctly. I do not accept that scientific software models are a suitable replacement for any kind of empirical measurement and any statements made entirely from models (points 2, 5 and 6 which I quote from WG1), in my opinion should not be in a policy document. They are too uncertain. I am not accusing anybody of deliberate bias here. It is simply that I have spent much of my career researching and publishing on the unquantifiable nature of software models. So if anybody would like a technical discussion on the poor quality of software in general and scientific software in particular, have a look at my website and then ask me whatever you like.
Finally a little story for anybody who is interested in the topic of numerical weather prediction quality. In 1974, I rewrote the main forecasting model of the UK Meteorological Office, (transforming it into sigma coordinates). During this process, I found a serious and previously undiscovered error in the production model. Every other time-step, the non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equations were zeroed. I was horrified as the whole of the weather is generated by these terms. Without them, you can have no baroclinic instability and the atmosphere degenerates into hydrostatic equilibrium. For the only time in 3 years, we dropped the daily production run and reran my correction out to 72 hours to assess the damage. There was almost no visible difference. This I was told was because of smoothing. I’ll say. I would like to report that software has improved since those halcyon days but it hasn’t much. Its bigger though. Much, much bigger.
So, let’s have a bit more openly shared data and analysis and treat models with the caution they deserve and we might make some progress.
Best wishes, Les.
Rich Horton (12:21:50) :
“IPCC Statement: “Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased since about 1970.””
There’s a little editing go on here – that’s not what the IPCC said. From AR4 Working Group 1:
“There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases in tropical SSTs.”
We should thank Tom P for galvanizing discussion.
Where is Joel Shore loitering these days?
Ian Summerell (14:28:15) :
‘I’ve read all of the blogs on here and I would like to ask one question.
Where is it all going to end?
If the government’s of the world have managed the data and mislead us all. How do we every get them to make things RIGHT?’
You throw the ones In governments out on their ears and star over.
climategate2009 (02:09:37) :
Re: Pachauri video
Could you tell me when and who interviewed Pachauri in that video? Thanks in advance.
Quote: Ian Summerell (14:28:15) :
“I’ve read all of the blogs on here and I would like to ask one question.
Where is it all going to end?
If the government’s of the world have managed the data and mislead us all. How do we every get them to make things RIGHT?”
By getting to the filthy bottom of the climategate iceberg!
The international community of climatologist followed the well-trod path of NAS, NASA, DOE, etc by misrepresenting and manipulating data to please those who control the research funds.
But climatologist very foolishly lied about something that everyone can check for themselves – Earth’s climate.
NAS, NASA, and DOE cleverly manipulated and misrepresented data that almost nobody could check:
a.) Reporting that helioseismology confirms the Standard Solar Model (SSM) of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
[If so, analytical chemistry labs could be closed and compositions of unknown samples determined by shaking and listening to the rattle!]
b.) Claiming that solar neutrinos oscillate away to confirm the SSM fairy tale.
c.) Ignoring nuclear rest mass data that show the Sun and the cosmos are powered by neutron repulsion, a far greater source of nuclear energy than H-fusion (H-bomb) or U-fission (A-bomb).
“How do we every get them to make things RIGHT?”
Melt the Climategate iceberg and expose the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media that use science as a propaganda tool to control the world.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Domino’s falling!
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/02/16/dominos-falling/
Tom P
“Not really”:
A distinction without a difference, Tom. But you already knew that, I hope, as did I.
“Melt the Climategate iceberg and expose the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media that use science as a propaganda tool to control the world. ”
——-
The year was 1824. Jean Baptiste Fourier sat stooped over in his study, when he felt a thrill of fear at the approach of a rasping, metal-on-metal sound. All too soon, the Grand Wizard appeared before him.
“Sir Newton” Fourier asked with a slight shiver of fear, wondering if he would ever get used to the unnatural steam-powered apparatus that prolonged the life of Isaac Newton, the greatest of the European Illuminati. “How may your humble servant assist you?”
“Fourier, we need you to fabricate something called a “greenhouse effect” saying that CO2 warms the planet.”
“CO2!” Fourier was shocked. “But it’s a harmless trace gas!”
“I know, Fourier, and of course, all clear-thinking minds know intuitively that a large and important effect cannot proceed from a small cause. To maintain this deception, we will have the falsify vast amount of scientific data for the next two centuries. But we must convince the ignorant that this is so.”
“But my master, why?”
“Wheels within wheels, my son. Wheels within wheels.”
Flash forward to 1989. James Hansen is in his private lab, working on Vensuvian climatology. Steven Hawking enters, making use, far from prying eyes, of the cybernetic body suit designed for him by Robert Noyce in refuge in Atlantis.
“It’s time, James. All our work with Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and thousands of lesser scientists in about to bear fruit. You – you will have the honor of unveiling to the public the theory of anthropogenic global warming!”
“I still don’t understand, Hawk. Why must we go forward with this deception? What will it achieve?”
“Don’t you understand yet, James? All our preparations and planning has been for this – to give the world no choice but to phase out fossil fuels and stop deforestation!”
“But why?”
“To destroy the Earth! After which I will return to the use of my family name, Darvos, and be free to design a race of pitiless cyborgs to enslave the galaxy! EX-TER-MIN-ATE! EXTERMINATE!”
Robert (13:05:41) :
“…by and large, no peer-reviewed science supports [Steven Mosher’s] argument that the theory of AGW is false.”
Planet Earth has been generally cooling for most of the past decade, while CO2 has been steadily rising. Conclusion: planet Earth is falsifying CO2=CAGW.
So who are we gonna believe? Robert the English Lit major? Or planet Earth, and our lyin’ eyes? click
Is is just me or does there seem to be an inverse correlation between El Nino and storms?
@Leif
“In evolutionary terms a false positive is harmless.”
I’m glad you linked to my field of expertise. I would say that in evolutionary terms a false positive is a waste of energy unless there are circumstances where the response is useful. Let’s keep the observations running before deciding on the cyclical nature of hurricane activity and solar influence.
“Planet Earth has been generally cooling for most of the past decade,”
Except for the part where it is the warmest decade in the climate record. Cue the increasingly frantic efforts to try and guess my background . . .
“Robert the English Lit major . . .”
There it is. Tightly written for a post of Smokey’s: just the basic factual error, argument from (a fantasy of) authority, and out. Well done, Smokey. You’ve distilled your faith-based thinking into its essentials.
J.Peden (18:59:17) :
“A distinction without a difference, Tom. But you already knew that, I hope, as did I.”
I was trying to be kind, but as you insist on a clear distinction: you’re wrong:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/413/oyad06.png
Robert,
Actually the planet has not shown any statistically significant warming since 1995 – from the horses mouth, Phil Jones.
Falling back upon the outmoded excuse that the current decade is the “warmest on record” is to deny several things at once. Alarmists are well practised at that particular mind game.
Planet Earth has been generally cooling for the last 12 years, ENSO adjusted, from Gavin’s figures, remains unrefuted by the realclimate contortionists(yes, they have tried)-
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/twelve-year-satellite-temperature.html
-requires reading and comprehension skills that fall somewhere between those of an English Lit major and a creature from Norse mythology.
Robert 23:29:11 All I need to know about your background is that you repeat mindlessly the warm last decade trope as if it had meaning. Why wouldn’t the end of a rising series be the warmest?
=====================================
Tom P (00:36:48),
One more time: what is the provenance of that anonymous chart? Because it conflicts with this one: click
If that chart was real, peer reviewed, etc., the alarmist contingent would be using it to defend Briffa. In fact, its hokey stick shape is even more scary than Briffa’s, so I question its validity.
Robert,
You constantly denigrate commenters with education in the hard sciences, as if you had an equal education. But your replies appear to simply be cut ‘n’ pasted from realclimate sources.
You have asked me numerous questions, and I’ve answered them all in detail. My one and only question to you has been: what is your personal educational expertise, that you can presume to be more knowledgeable in science matters than people here with established credentials? But you always squirm around, avoiding answering my one and only question.
The fact that you avoid providing your credentials, if any, rather than providing a straightforward answer, pretty much makes it clear that you lack a science background. The “post normal science” crowd believes they have the answers based on their non-rigorous education. But they’re simply poseurs.
So what is it? Sociology? History? English Lit? Some sort of “studies”? Or Theology, like Al Gore? Or is it physics, electronics, geology, math, etc? Post your CV.
Oh, and Robert, contemplate the irony of your comment about ‘faith-based’. It is becoming apparent that the whole alarmist credo is faith-based. What is the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. We don’t know, and all of you who claim whatever number you claim do so on the basis of faith.
====================================
Smokey (05:02:47) :
“One more time: what is the provenance of that anonymous chart?”
What a short memory you have! I told you on the thread below yesterday – you can find it on Climate Audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/
“In fact, its hokey stick shape is even more scary than Briffa’s, so I question its validity.”
No need to be frightened – it’s identical to both Briffa’s and McIntyre’s chronology from this data, see e.g.:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_merged_rev.gif
-quote
Tom P (17:03:18) :
Rich Horton (12:21:50) :
“IPCC Statement: “Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased since about 1970.””
There’s a little editing go on here – that’s not what the IPCC said. From AR4 Working Group 1:
“There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases in tropical SSTs.”
-endquote
Tom P., you do realize those are two independant statements, right? I mean you cannot “correlate” one thing with another (for example – oh, I don’t know – the numbers of intense cyclones in a region and Sea Surfce Temps in that region) unless they are independant variables. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in looking at each seperately. Hatton didn’t look at SST, and he didn’t need to in order to say something about the frequency of tropical cyclones.
You understand that, right?
Smokey (05:02:47) :
Tom P (00:36:48),
One more time: what is the provenance of that anonymous chart?
I thought it said CRU…so it must be ‘beer-reviewed.’
Rich Horton (08:33:30) :
Don’t be disingenuous.
The critical difference is that your supposed quote from the IPCC omitted that it only referred to the North Atlantic. Hence you went on to disprove the claim in terms of global cyclone activity, a claim the IPCC never made.
Tom P (06:57:58),
You’ll be happy to know I’ve spent the last forty minutes clicking around through 300+ comments, looking for your hokey stick chart. You might have indicated that it was linked in a particular post. No wonder I didn’t find it yesterday.
But it’s an interesting thread, which thoroughly skewers both your claims and Briffa’s.
Numerous posts like this deconstruct everything you tried to say:
“Steve’s substitution as a sensitivity test did what it was intended to do. It showed that using another legitimate sample removed the sharp [temperature] rise in recent times – clearly a rise that was due only to the live proxies which were selected in some determined fashion.”
So you cherry picked; what’s new? But I suppose everyone cherry picks to some degree. What bothers me is the unfounded belief that tree ring width equates directly to past temperatures. The result is the claim that Briffa had a lot of treemometers that told him what he wanted to hear: temperatures are rising fast.
In fact, numerous studies show a much greater correlation to CO2 than to temperature: click [see how easy I make it to find a graph?]
Your hokey stick treemometer graph was debunked from numerous different angles in that thread, by plenty of knowledgeable people. But nobody should take my word for it. Take a look at Tom’s treemometer deconstruction.
Smokey (11:39:20) :
“But it’s an interesting thread, which thoroughly skewers both your claims and Briffa’s.”
You’ve got a lot more reading ahead of you on Climate Audit if you want to understand the problems with McIntyre’s substitution. You’ll then see that he left a couple of important questions unanswered:
1. What is the cause of the divergence between the young and old tree chronologies in his substitution that occurs not just recently, but continually and to an even greater extent in the past over the last two thousand years, in direct contradiction to his claim in:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/04/gavins-guru-and-rcs-standardization/
2. What values do he get for correlation and t statistic between his substitution chronology and the Yamal temperature during the growth period.
He promised a response to both questions three months ago. I suppose he might need a reminder.
Real Climate’s response:
“Whatevergate”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
Oxymoron:
“You constantly denigrate commenters with education in the hard sciences, as if you had an equal education.”
People who mangle the science are going to hear about it, whatever level of education they claim to have. I find your argument from authority highly amusing, given your contempt for the findings of climate scientists.
“But your replies appear to simply be cut ‘n’ pasted from realclimate sources.”
I suggest you get over your fear and loathing of the peer-reviewed literature. It does tend to come up a lot when you are discussing science. You too could benefit from citing some sources to back up your assertions.
“What bothers me is the unfounded belief that tree ring width equates directly to past temperatures.”
All you have to do is measure the tree ring width for the 130 years of the instrument record. Then you have a correlation you can apply to years prior to the instrument record. I’m sure there are technical points in terms of getting it done (controlling for wetter years, soil conditions, etc), but the basic idea is extremely simple: you use the period in which you have both tree ring data and instrument records to establish the relationship between the conditions and the width.
Tom P says: “The critical difference is that your supposed quote from the IPCC omitted that it only referred to the North Atlantic. Hence you went on to disprove the claim in terms of global cyclone activity, a claim the IPCC never made.”
IPCC says: “Other regions [i.e. not the North Atlantic] appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity as well…”
So what aren’t they claiming again?
Rich Horton (08:49:49) :
“So what aren’t they claiming again?”
Please reread the original paper and my much earlier comment on 16/2/09 on 02:16:26.
The three testable claims made by the IPCC are established in the paper. You blatantly rewrote the first, taking out the critical reference to the North Atlantic. Your best defence now is carelessness.
Rich Horton (08:49:49),
Don’t play the game of having to guess the location of what he’s referring to. I spent too much time yesterday looking in Mr Pike’s vague location for a chart that could have been simply pointed out.
When I finally found it buried deep in that thread, I had read a large part of the CA comments, which thoroughly deconstructed Tom’s assertions. So it wasn’t a complete waste of time.
Now he’s telling you to sift through the archives to find a particular post from a year ago – without providing the article it’s posted under, which would have made the search a lot easier. Don’t be trolled like I was. He’s only playing his game because you were right.